This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89% and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40–0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV_ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV_ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

Aim: To determine the absolute and relative reliability of functional trunk tests, using a functional electromechanical dynamometer to evaluate the isokinetic strength of trunk flexors and to determine the most reliable assessment condition, in order to compare the absolute and relative reliability of mean force and peak force of trunk flexors and to determine which isokinetic condition of evaluation is best related to the maximum isometric. Methods: Test-retest of thirty-seven physically active male student volunteers who performed the different protocols, isometric contraction and the combination of three velocities (V₁ = 015 m s⁻¹ , V₂ = 0.30 m s⁻¹, V₃ = 0.45 m s⁻¹) and two range of movement (R₁ = 25% cm ; R₂ = 50% cm) protocols. Results: All protocols to evaluate trunk flexors showed an absolute reliability provided a stable repeatability for isometric and dynamic protocols with a coefficient of variation (CV) being below 10% and a high or very high relative reliability (0.69 < intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.86). The more reliable strength manifestation (CV = 6.82%) to evaluate the concentric contraction of trunk flexors was mean force, with 0.15 m s⁻¹ and short range of movement (V₁R₁) condition. The most reliable strength manifestation to evaluate the eccentric contraction of trunk flexors was peak force, with 0.15 m s⁻¹ and a large range of movement (V₁R_2; CV = 5.07%), and the most reliable way to evaluate isometric trunk flexors was by peak force (CV = 7.72%). The mean force of eccentric trunk flexor strength with 0.45 m s⁻¹ and short range of movement (V₃R₁) condition (r = 0.73) was best related to the maximum isometric contraction. Conclusion: Functional electromechanical dynamometry is a reliable evaluation system for assessment of trunk flexor strength.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability for the strength and movement velocity of the concentric phase from the five Sit-to-Stand (5STS), using three incremental loads measured by a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) in healthy young adults. Methods: The average and peak strength and velocity values of sixteen healthy adults (mean ± standard deviation (SD): age = 22.81 ± 2.13 years) were recorded at 5, 10 and 15 kg. To evaluate the reliability of FEMD, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were obtained. Results: Reliability was high for the 10 kg (CV range: 3.70–4.18%, ICC range: 0.95–0.98) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 1.64–3.02%, ICC: 0.99) at average and peak strength, and reliability was high for the 5 kg (CV range: 1.71–2.84%, ICC range: 0.96–0.99), 10 kg (CV range: 0.74–1.84%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) and 15 kg conditions (CV range: 0.79–3.11%, ICC range: 0.99–1.00) at average and peak velocity. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrate that FEMD is a reliable instrument to measure the average and peak strength and velocity values during the five STS in healthy young adults.

Proprioception is significantly impaired in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), contributing to reduced functionality. Strength training (ST) is essential in KOA by improving muscle strength, although it may also be effective in improving proprioception. The purpose was to determine the effect of ST on knee proprioception in KOA patients. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, WOS, and PEDro were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (inception to March 2023). Comparisons for ST were physical exercise different from ST, non-exercise-based interventions, and no intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses were performed by comparison groups using the standardized mean difference (SMD) (Hedge's g) with random effects models, also considering subgroups by proprioception tests. Finally, six RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score was 6.3, and the highest proportion of biases corresponds to performance, selection, and detection. The meta-analysis indicated that only when compared with non-intervention, ST significantly improved knee proprioception for the joint position sense (JPS) (active + passive), JPS (passive), and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) subgroups (g ​= ​−1.33 [-2.33, −0.32], g = ​−2.29 [-2.82, −1.75] and g ​= ​−2.40 [-4.23, −0.58], respectively). However, in the knee JPS (active) subgroup, ST was not significant (g ​= ​−0.72 [-1.84, 0.40]). In conclusion, ST improves knee proprioception compared to non-intervention. However, due to the paucity of studies and diversity of interventions, more evidence is needed to support the effectiveness of ST. Future RCTs may address the limitations of this review to advance knowledge about proprioceptive responses to ST and contribute to clinical practice.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (I) evaluate the evidence on the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in hypertensive patients; (II) determine whether HIIT impacts SBP and DBP differently; and (III) assess the clinical relevance of these effects. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, resulting in the inclusion of seven randomized clinical trials in the meta-analysis. The outcomes were analyzed using random-effects models to compute mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) for SBP and DBP. Results: A small reduction in SBP was observed with HIIT interventions (MD −3.00; 95% CI −4.61 to −1.39; p < 0.0001; SMD −0.28; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.13; p = 0.0003). However, no statistically significant reductions were detected for DBP (MD −0.70; 95% CI −1.80 to 0.39; p = 0.21; SMD −0.07; 95% CI −0.22 to 0.08; p = 0.35). Despite demonstrating statistical significance for SBP, the effects did not reach clinical relevance. Conclusions: HIIT interventions yield small reductions in SBP, with minimal impact on DBP. These findings suggest limited clinical relevance in the management of hypertension. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to standardize HIIT protocols, with specific emphasis on intensity control and manipulation, to better understand their potential role in hypertensive populations.